Christians: can you talk about which one of you has the theology right?

[Politesse]

Well Rhea, are you learning anything from your experiment?

 

[steve_bank]

Hmmm...wasn't there something like 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is god's'?

In the geopolitics of the day that sounds like preaching go with Rome and practice Hebrew faith. Jesus as a prophet saw the coming destruction of Israel.

Still no answer on how to figure out which version represents truth.

 

[Learner]

Another interpretive answer. That is what Christians have always done. The reality the actual number of words attributed to Jesus are few. He left no details or consistent theology and did not create a new religion. He was a Jewish rabbi preaching to Jews.

In comparison Buddha left a specific set of principles, rules, and moral requirements.

As did Mohammed.

That was an answer was is it not? But of course, it's not the type of answer you can get to grips with , assuming you have preset, ready-made argumentative ideas you can't argue with here. I made an answer ... it was not an avoidance.

Anyway, although not in quite the same way, I do concur somewhat : that there's something about Jesus when He is often seen as the "odd" one out.

If you want to be a follower of Jesus, be a Jew first and foremost.

And ... did Jews have to be foremost like the Prophets who lived before there was the existence of Judah? Moses was not Jewish IOWs.

 

[Learner]

But what I'm saying is, precisely, that violent means are sometimes okay. But you said it was against Christian teachings to try to change laws for the better by force. If so, that is a problem for Christian teachings, because they oppose the use of violence when legitimate. And if they do not oppose so, then it is not true that it's against Christian teachings to try to change laws for the better by force, but rather, it depends on the case.

I am also saying violent means, do change things for the better, this bit I agree with, the legitimacy is obviously acceptable by mans standards, but not as according to Jesus. And alternatively to violent methods say for instance: Mahatma Gandhi's fight for better-changes example. The events that happened in his time , like Jesus, didn't fight back against His persecutors or tormentors. There IS violence of course,but unfortunately it only comes from one side.

Actually, "the Israelites" are not an individual. Some Israelites witness some things (well, not really, but in the story). Nearly all Israelites did not (at least, there is nothing in the story to suggest so, so we go by history?).

The Israelites "as a whole" have "collectively" seen many things right up to the times of Judah taking a considerable period of time, I was trying to say. (I thought we were going by the story , and challenging the consistency , and whether or not it's part of history).

Jesus was rebuked by the Jews and many who witnessed HIS miracles did not aid him in HIS defence to the Sanhedrin or the Romans, not untill after the ressurection (which is telling) who gladly went out professing HIS name as the preached, only "this time" without fear, despite expecting to end up with tragic consequencies.

But there is huge difference between not aiding him, Romans revolting against the emperor, other authorities, and the super-powerful Jesus, just so that they can have their death "sports". That just would not actually happen.

There must be various other elements, and not just the death-sports alone. They also had belief in their own gods. I mentioned Jesus "not being aided", in context that even when the crowd saw Him perform miracles, it wasn't enough to convince them, to defend Him. His accusers didn't believe He was the Messiah but rather ... prefered the "opposite" portrayal e.g. A blasphemer doing (good) deeds on the Sabbath, healing with the power of demons, a scorcerer, a liar and so on . Either which way He's portrayed as, He is still a threat. (Herod seemed to have thought so)

As for those who allegedly did not aid him, clearly they did not seem confident that the miracles had in fact happened (otherwise, why would they change their attitude after the resurrection?), or just weren't human-like (i.e., whoever made up the stories did not come up with believable human characters).

Well yes as mentioned , they were afraid of the accusers (as who's to be accused next) and the angry "mobs". I would expect more so if they were witnessing the painful ordeal being nailed to the cross. Ah but He rose again, others have risen but surely , someone out of those who remained silent must be thinking "there's nothing to worry or fear about death after all !" as the theme of the story goes. It sounds just like the very characteristics of realization to me , those little nuances often overlooked.

The Temptation of Power is another thing not yet mentioned and would be hard to "give up" I suspect.

Yes, but there would be no further temptation when it becomes clear to a person that they actually have no power comparable to that of the person they're confronting.

Jesus was tempted with power by the "master of enticing temptations", along with demons etc.. they could also be a gods too, to pagan-god worshippers. Perhaps a Roman signed his name to join the club while sacrificing victims in the arena as part of the deal contract, and in return, gets customer support. Its not just Jesus in the story I am saying.

So what would He need to do to convince Rome? It might have been convincing if they brought Him to Rome and they witnessed Him too, rising from the dead. ( 2 crucifixions spoils the story , dump it! )

But yes.. Jesus would have to convince them all at once, certainly!

No need to. He can convince one of them, and then that will change things. If others prepare a violent revolt, then he can go to those others, etc. Moreover, he can convert one, tell him not to do anything until he goes to other powerful Romans, etc. There are plenty of alternatives. Still, making a display for many, as he did when he fed the crowd, would be a good option too.

In any event, the empire does not need to be changed all at once and fixing everything (though that's a possibility, depending on power level) in order to be changed.

Yes I must admit , it sounds like an option (something you can use for your "own" story ). Interesting ideas.

And if the empire is then "loving and caring" , it would be in need to spread quite fast to their surrounding borders where their enemies are on the otherside, needing quickly to plead or preach to them, when they've been waiting in the forrests for the opportunity to vengefully strike instantly. Doesn't seem viable imo.

Of course, it is viable. The empire does not need to stop acting in self-defense - just to stop going on the offensive. Moreover, it's not as if the neighboring tribes were in a position to strike immediately, and would have realized that the empire just got better (which would not have to make it weak).

Well yes granted, you do have a point (which may sound a little contradicting to the scene in my earlier post , but not quite ), an alternate scene, e.g. Just as Mahatma Gandhi followers going out to their abusers or the individual Roman soldiers written about, who engage with their enemies, showing them love and kindness after they had already converted.

I'll have to leave it here, posts are too long for me, my eyes are not so good and Im straining with this monitor.

 

[Politesse]

Hmmm...wasn't there something like 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is god's'?

In the geopolitics of the day that sounds like preaching go with Rome and practice Hebrew faith. Jesus as a prophet saw the coming destruction of Israel.

Still no answer on how to figure out which version represents truth.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Jesus taught in parabolas; usually his allegories fold back on themselves and reveal more the longer you think about them, akin to a koan. In this case, Jesus is reflecting on the folly of thinking that one's money belongs to oneself, when it is inscribed with another man's face and guaranteed by his temporal political authority. Why are you upset at being taxed? Because you are pretending to own the money. But the money is truly owned by the government that made it, and they can withdraw it at any time. The idea of the folly of accumulating wealth is a repeating theme in Jesus' teachings, and this is the sequentially final allegory he used to point this out. But he then adds this other level. What is God's? Well, from a Jewish perspective, the name of God is on everything. His divine spirit, his ruah, is testified by every living breathing thing. Caesars come and go, sometimes with their guts disemboweled in a back alley of the palace and their names struck from the monuments. But the imprimatur of God is life itself. So what does God own? Well, everything that he can take away. And that clearly (from Jesus' perspective) includes all of life.

So where does that leave Caesar? In one stroke, Jesus is both mocking those who are upset at paying taxes to Caesar, but also subtly mocking Caesar himself, whose supposed godhood is circumscribed by the greater and more menaingful rule of God. Caesar owns all the money, but God owns existence. What do we owe to God? What does Caesar himself owe to God? You can start to see why they executed the man for sedition.

Incidentally, rhere was no such thing as a Hebrew "faith" at that time. You might have faith (i.e. trust) in the Hebrew God, but the temple rites were considered the province and responsibility of the Judean people, a question of ethnicity, not religious conviction

 

[Rhea]

It's a bit more complicated than that. Jesus taught in parabolas;

A parabola is when the graph shows the same thing in positive as well as negative and you can't really tell the different without an arbitrary coordinate system, and it never takes a stand about which is true correct or appropriate.

Right?

This is a great metaphor.

 

[steve_bank]

Another interpretive answer. That is what Christians have always done. The reality the actual number of words attributed to Jesus are few. He left no details or consistent theology and did not create a new religion. He was a Jewish rabbi preaching to Jews.

In comparison Buddha left a specific set of principles, rules, and moral requirements.

As did Mohammed.

That was an answer was is it not? But of course, it's not the type of answer you can get to grips with , assuming you have preset, ready-made argumentative ideas you can't argue with here. I made an answer ... it was not an avoidance.

Anyway, although not in quite the same way, I do concur somewhat : that there's something about Jesus when He is often seen as the "odd" one out.

If you want to be a follower of Jesus, be a Jew first and foremost.

And ... did Jews have to be foremost like the Prophets who lived before there was the existence of Judah? Moses was not Jewish IOWs.

One of the few things Jesus says clearly is reinforcing the Mosaic prohibitions against divorce. What god has put together let no man put asunder. Even today divorce among orthodox Jews is not easy. You do not just file for divorce for irreconcilable differences.

He equated divorce and remarry as equivalent to fornication, a serious offense in those times. I believe it could be a stoning offense.
I am not looking to have questions answered to my satisfaction. I am looking for acknowledgement that there is no right and certain Christianity, only personal versions. Other than a few sound biyes from JC there is no orginal Christian theology, JC was Jewish and a rabbi.

His use of parables and allegory was not new in Jewish traditions.

David and Goliath. Job. Samson and Delilah. The Book Of Proverbs. JC referred to past prophets. He appers as a Jew educated and literate in Jewish transition and theology.

It is inescapable. To be a follower of Jesus one muss adhere to Jewish traditions. In the gospels Jesus gave no dispensations.It was Paul who never knew Jesus who got rid of Mosaic requirements for gentiles.

The answer to the OP is simple. Look directly who Jesus was in the gospels. Everything else is opinion and interpretation and invention.

 

[Politesse]

It's a bit more complicated than that. Jesus taught in parabolas;

A parabola is when the graph shows the same thing in positive as well as negative and you can't really tell the different without an arbitrary coordinate system, and it never takes a stand about which is true correct or appropriate.

Right?

This is a great metaphor.

"Parable" = parabola in Koine, so the metaphor is in the original. And I think you're about right. His parables always dip in and out of the literal/cthonic and the allegorical/celestial, maintaining balance and creating a link or pathway between them. It gives them an expansive quality; they can be applied to many times and situations with equal validity. As Phillip put it, "the Lord wrapped everything in a mystery"

 

[steve_bank]

Anyone read Aesop's Fables?

When you arrive at the Pearly Gates the first thing that is going to check is whether or not a man is circumcised.

 

[Learner]

Luckily without the old body there's no evidence.

He was a Jewish rabbi preaching to Jews.

I always felt at odds with the rabbi term, because as you know, its a term used only for the Pharisees back then. (Was He a Pharisee?) Should be fair to call Him a priest too like the Sadducees, and why not?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am also saying violent means, do change things for the better, this bit I agree with, the legitimacy is obviously acceptable by mans standards, but not as according to Jesus.

Our moral terms (e.g., "morally wrong", "morally acceptable", etc.) are about human morality. When Jesus made moral claims, he did not make claims in some alien language, but in a human language, so there aren't two languages involved here. The questions are hand are:

1. Is it sometimes morally acceptable to use violence to change laws for the better?
2. Do Jesus's teachings imply that it is never acceptable to use violence to change laws for the better?

The answer to 1. is "Yes". If the answer to 2. is "Yes", then those particular teachings of Jesus are false. If, on the other hand, the answer to 2. is "no", then it is not true that it's against Christian teachings to try to change laws for the better by force, but rather, it depends on the case.

And alternatively to violent methods say for instance: Mahatma Gandhi's fight for better-changes example.

Non-violent methods are sometimes viable, true. However, sometimes they are not viable.

The events that happened in his time , like Jesus, didn't fight back against His persecutors or tormentors. There IS violence of course,but unfortunately it only comes from one side.

I'm not sure about that. For example, Jesus assaulted the merchants at the temple. That's violence from his side. And when Jesus appeared to Saul, was there not an implicit threat of violence? It is not as if Jesus provided an argument that persuaded Saul that his behavior was immoral. When was Soul persuaded, then? He saw a glimpse of Jesus's great power. But that is not an argument. It's a show of force - which, sometimes, is entirely justified, and sometimes it is not, but that's another matter.

The Israelites "as a whole" have "collectively" seen many things right up to the times of Judah taking a considerable period of time, I was trying to say.

Psychologically, say, Judith is not going to be afraid of Yahweh's power just because Ezequiel saw a display of power. My point in this context that rebellions against Yahweh's laws on the part of people who never witnessed a display of power on his part do not provide support the view that displays of power are not effective means of obtaining compliance. Given the amount of power on display, they usually are effective (in the story, and would be effective in reality if they happened).

(I thought we were going by the story , and challenging the consistency , and whether or not it's part of history).

I was going by the story in terms of displays of power for the sake of the argument, but the story itself claims to be part of history, so one can use historical data (as well as data about human psychology) to make assessments about how others would probably have reacted if they had witnessed such-and-such things, or whether people saw displays of superhuman powers often (they did not).

There must be various other elements, and not just the death-sports alone. They also had belief in their own gods. I mentioned Jesus "not being aided", in context that even when the crowd saw Him perform miracles, it wasn't enough to convince them, to defend Him. His accusers didn't believe He was the Messiah but rather ... prefered the "opposite" portrayal e.g. A blasphemer doing (good) deeds on the Sabbath, healing with the power of demons, a scorcerer, a liar and so on . Either which way He's portrayed as, He is still a threat. (Herod seemed to have thought so.

Well, a display of power does not provide any good reason to believe the agent making the display is morally good. However, a display of power does provide a good reason to not going up against the powerful agent!

As for Herod, which one are you talking about? (the NT mentions more than one).
But in any case, I do not recall any instance in which any of the Herods witnesses Jesus's displays of power, and then thinks Jesus has the power of demons. Do you have any particular passage in mind?

Well yes as mentioned , they were afraid of the accusers (as who's to be accused next) and the angry "mobs". I would expect more so if they were witnessing the painful ordeal being nailed to the cross. Ah but He rose again, others have risen but surely , someone out of those who remained silent must be thinking "there's nothing to worry or fear about death after all !" as the theme of the story goes. It sounds just like the very characteristics of realization to me , those little nuances often overlooked.

I do not see why they would be thinking that. If anything, Jesus's powers to heal or raise the dead are more relevant than his own resurrection, which only shows his own capability to survive, not that of his followers. But in any event, even in the story, the vast majority of those who saw him use his powers did not intend to go up against him.

Jesus was tempted with power by the "master of enticing temptations", along with demons etc.. they could also be a gods too, to pagan-god worshippers.

I'm talking about the emperor and other powerful Romans.

Perhaps a Roman signed his name to join the club while sacrificing victims in the arena as part of the deal contract, and in return, gets customer support.

I'm probably not following here. Is it about demons? If it's about demons, Jesus could show his power to defeat them.

So what would He need to do to convince Rome? It might have been convincing if they brought Him to Rome and they witnessed Him too, rising from the dead.

Right. But there are plenty of options to persuade the emperor and powerful Romans. Now, if he wants to persuade greater numbers, how about, say, showing up at a large arena after a gladiatorial fight, and raising the dead gladiators from the dead after the show? That would be something! And then float in the air, and go transfiguration style! Further, make bread appear so that everyone can eat. And so on.

I'll have to leave it here, posts are too long for me, my eyes are not so good and Im straining with this monitor.

Fair enough. It's a bit too long for me as well, actually.

 

[steve_bank]

Luckily without the old body there's no evidence.

He was a Jewish rabbi preaching to Jews.

I always felt at odds with the rabbi term, because as you know, its a term used only for the Pharisees back then. (Was He a Pharisee?) Should be fair to call Him a priest too like the Sadducees, and why not?

There was a theory in the times of the 60s that JC actually spent his missing years in India. In the counter culture a mix of Jesus and Krishna. Some theorized JC was gay.

JC is the ultimate Rorschach experiment. People read their own individual salvation into the image. JC invoked prophets and was said to speak in synagogues.

You can twist, turn, and wiggle but you are got by the toe. JC was a Jew preaching to Jews about Israel. He gave no dispensations and appears to reinforce Mosaic traditions.

You should more aptly call yourself a Paulist as should most modern western Christians.

JC left no codified theology, he did not need to. He was a Jew preaching Jewish theology.

 

[skepticalbip]

Luckily without the old body there's no evidence.

He was a Jewish rabbi preaching to Jews.

I always felt at odds with the rabbi term, because as you know, its a term used only for the Pharisees back then. (Was He a Pharisee?) Should be fair to call Him a priest too like the Sadducees, and why not?

There was a theory in the times of the 60s that JC actually spent his missing years in India.

... snip ...

That story was not just a 60s thing. It is an old story in India that Jesus studied Buddhism in India from age 12 to 30 then returned to Israel to pass on the teachings he learned. The story goes on that he survived crucifixion and returned to India where he taught for several decades until dying of old age. There is a tomb in Kashmir where he is claimed to be buried.

 

[steve_bank]

There was a theory in the times of the 60s that JC actually spent his missing years in India.

... snip ...

That story was not just a 60s thing. It is an old story in India that Jesus studied Buddhism in India from age 12 to 30 then returned to Israel to pass on the teachings he learned. The story goes on that he survived crucifixion and returned to India where he taught for several decades until dying of old age. There is a tomb in Kashmir where he is claimed to be buried.

I thought Buddhism predated the gospel times by around 350 years.

 

[skepticalbip]

There was a theory in the times of the 60s that JC actually spent his missing years in India.

... snip ...

That story was not just a 60s thing. It is an old story in India that Jesus studied Buddhism in India from age 12 to 30 then returned to Israel to pass on the teachings he learned. The story goes on that he survived crucifixion and returned to India where he taught for several decades until dying of old age. There is a tomb in Kashmir where he is claimed to be buried.

I thought Buddhism predated the gospel times by around 350 years.

Actually Gautama Buddha was born something like 600 BC. Buddhism was a well established religion by Jesus' time so, by the Indian legends, Jesus was just a student that studied at several Buddhist monasteries before returning to his homeland to teach. He then returned to India after the crucifixion to continue on as a Buddhist priest.

 

[Learner]

Luckily without the old body there's no evidence.

He was a Jewish rabbi preaching to Jews.

I always felt at odds with the rabbi term, because as you know, its a term used only for the Pharisees back then. (Was He a Pharisee?) Should be fair to call Him a priest too like the Sadducees, and why not?

There was a theory in the times of the 60s that JC actually spent his missing years in India. In the counter culture a mix of Jesus and Krishna. Some theorized JC was gay.

JC is the ultimate Rorschach experiment. People read their own individual salvation into the image. JC invoked prophets and was said to speak in synagogues.

You can twist, turn, and wiggle but you are got by the toe. JC was a Jew preaching to Jews about Israel. He gave no dispensations and appears to reinforce Mosaic traditions.

You should more aptly call yourself a Paulist as should most modern western Christians.

JC left no codified theology, he did not need to. He was a Jew preaching Jewish theology.

(Angra's got a long post so I'll just skip for the moment.)

From the looks of things , the underlined above sounds quite like your theories introduction to the discussion .

Preaching to the Jews sure. We can agree at least, that Jesus wasn't preaching the Pharisees tradition ,e.g. the talmud as a Rabbi?

Jesus was teaching the same things as the Christians learn about, minus the "civil laws and certain man-made traditions" differing from: knowing God , the prophets and Gods laws. We know about them! It doesn't say anywhere in the NT "do not learn about the Tanakh. Christians have their own tradition you could say ,the foundation based on : a righteous Jew.

Rather than Paulist why not Saint? The term was long before Paul .

 

[steve_bank]

There was a theory in the times of the 60s that JC actually spent his missing years in India. In the counter culture a mix of Jesus and Krishna. Some theorized JC was gay.

JC is the ultimate Rorschach experiment. People read their own individual salvation into the image. JC invoked prophets and was said to speak in synagogues.

You can twist, turn, and wiggle but you are got by the toe. JC was a Jew preaching to Jews about Israel. He gave no dispensations and appears to reinforce Mosaic traditions.

You should more aptly call yourself a Paulist as should most modern western Christians.

JC left no codified theology, he did not need to. He was a Jew preaching Jewish theology.

(Angra's got a long post so I'll just skip for the moment.)

From the looks of things , the underlined above sounds quite like your theories introduction to the discussion .

Preaching to the Jews sure, so then we can agree, Jesus wasn't preaching the Pharisees tradition , the talmud as a Rabbi?


Rather than Paulist why not Saints? The term was long before Paul .


Jesus was teaching the same things as the Christians learn about, minus the "civil laws and traditions" differing from: knowing God , the prophets and Gods laws. We know about them! Christians have their own tradition you could say.

No, Christians in the 1st century rejected ties to the Hebrews and developed their own distinct identity, albeit with multiple factions. Sometimes violent.

Christians got rid of Hebrew traditions like kosher food and circumcision, courtesy of Paul.

Paul said what made a Jew was what was in the heart not a circumcision. The Jewish connection.

I do not recognize sainthood by any means. You can find the rather lengthy list of Catholic saints on line. The word saint is meaningless.

Today we'd call Paul a misogynist. Women should dress plainly, walk behind men, and not teach men in public. A bit of a woman hater. Paul set Christianity on its misogynist course. He also began the Christianity view of sex as a corruption, which was part of Jewish belief. Sex robbed one of the 'spirit' and energy. When Paul condemned pagan practices that is what he was referring to. Paul says he was celibate.




You can hide behind quotes and evasions. The fact is Jesus was a Jew. The alleged name given to Jesus by Romans was a mocking 'king of the Jews'.

It can be tough when what you base your life on is shown to be ersatz. Christianity is a long stretch of invention. Jesus actualy said very little in the gospels.

 

[Learner]

You keep saying I'm hiding or similar to it.

Ok ... Fine.

(I'll Get back to you.)

 

[steve_bank]

God only knows, so to speak.

One of my favorite quotes is attributed to Confusions. Wise is the wise man who gets beyond books of wisdom. I get that continuously quoting scripture makes one feel good, but what is the point? Is there some purpose to quoting, does it guide you in daily life and relating to people face to face?

Can you function without a scripture context?

At what point do you stop quoting and start practicing principles?

 

[Learner]

God only knows, so to speak.

One of my favorite quotes is attributed to Confusions. Wise is the wise man who gets beyond books of wisdom. I get that continuously quoting scripture makes one feel good, but what is the point? Is there some purpose to quoting, does it guide you in daily life and relating to people face to face?

Can you function without a scripture context?

At what point do you stop quoting and start practicing principles?

Of course I can, the discussion was about what was said in the scripture was it not?